hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "stack (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17484) Add non cached version of OffheapKV for write path
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:31:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17484?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15828886#comment-15828886

stack commented on HBASE-17484:

Any evidence to present to justify why we should have these new types? We've gone this route
a bunch of times in our history adding caching and then undoing it.  The argument is that
reading these lengths by parsing offheap bytes is slow?

After this patch, how many versions of KeyValue do we have?

Do we have to have a OffheapKeyValue and Cached... ? Do we have to realize the storage in
the Type? Isn't it enough having a ByteBufferCell with it internally doing direct or non-direct?

This looks odd... 	  private static final int FIXED_OVERHEAD =
39	      OffheapKeyValue.FIXED_OVERHEAD + +Bytes.SIZEOF_INT + Bytes.SIZEOF_SHORT;  .... is
that a double '+'?

> Add non cached version of OffheapKV for write path
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-17484
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17484
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: regionserver
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>            Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
>            Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>         Attachments: HBASE-17484.patch
> After running lot of different performance tests for various scenarios and with multi
threads we thought that is  better to have a version of OffheapKV in write path that does
not cache anything and its fixed_overhead is equal to that in KeyValue. 

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message